I added this image to my signature, but don't want it to be an eyesore for the board so I figured I would ask.
at least it's not just us?
This is personal preference. I think it's an eyesore, just like animated gif's, but it's just my opinion and I might be wrong.
Fortunately I'm not prone to seizures.
For some reason its not showing up for me, but I agree with david anyway, they usually take up too much space and are distracting
I.E. sees it fine.
I can't see it either. I'm using Safari.
I guess that MAC kid isn't so cool after all. I am a PC and I can see his cool ass pic. Weird.
it kinda cool with the coaches. Now I forget the person who has it but the HUGE picture of Tate as their signature is little bit to much lol
I don't think it looks too bad. It's not very big and I think that would be the problem.
It's your signature. I'm a little more picky about what goes on top of it...but only a little.
"That's what she said."
Rock it till you knock it- its all up to you. Obviously, rhyme schemes take precedence over public opinion. But honestly, if you like it, keep it.
If everyone starts doing this, it definitely has the potential to get very annoying. I'd say no but it's not against the rules, so until it is, do whatever you wish.
Love the pic. It is not as bad as some who have signatures that are four or five lines long. Keep it. Bad ass. Shit. Crap. Gosh damn. Hell yeah. and all other yippee statements.
You should have Yost in there.
but I wouldn't use it as a signature. I figure it will get smacked down eventually. There's that whole slippery slope thingy.
who suddenly look over their left shoulder each time you post could lead to some unfortunate lawsuits. You may want to reconsider.
Great, now we've really become Scout over here. Those fuckers are always axing people, "Hey I got a new pic for a sig--it's really rad isn't it?"
Oh look, King of Belch is railing on Scout again, what a surprise.
Yeah, you're right. No need to rail anymore, it has been approaching scout level for a few months now. It's too late to rail now.
The first thing when I saw his post was "great, now we're going to get big pictures on the bottom of ridiculous things, as if the avatar isn't enough." I don't care if he has it or not. It's a free message board. As long as you're not unleashing personal attacks, crossing the proverbial line with hate language, politics, or over-reactionary you can do whatever is in your power.*
It's just the natural progression of message boards. No matter the attempt at upkeep, it will eventually devolve to scout level. Soon you'll start hearing people rail against that we're becoming mlive.
*Other exceptions may apply. Brian holds the final decision over subject manner and what the proverbial line is
MGoBoard > Scout > mlive >>>> Youtube comments
(The comment sections on Youtube might be the Internet's finest collection of mouthbreathing, hate-filled, illiterate pieces of garbage)
It might be an issue on the longer threads with a lot of replies when the comments are hugging the right side of the screen.
We are definitely headed along a Scout/Rivals path if sig pics start cropping up.
Big, fat NO to pictures in sigs.
Someone mentioned it, but slippery mf-ing slope. There's simply no need whatsoever to have a signature with a picture in it. None at all. There's hardly a need for signatures to begin with - we're all Michigan fans. We know the all time wins, winning percentages, nat'l titles, yadda yadda yadda.
Let's keep the space in threads limited to quality discussion - that's what's great about MGoBlog to begin with.
Ugh - people have avatars. That should be enough.
Large pictures in signatures? This is an excellent development! Now, users can now have a picture with like 20 barely clothed women in their signatures instead of the 5 or so that the small avatar limits them to, really showing the world what heterosexual stallions they are!!
IIRC, it was a dispute over a large picture of a barely-clothed young lady which caused Tom Beaver to leave Rivals, to GBW:Scout, which tKoB todays declares as the next step in MGoBlog evolution.
I think it's a great picture, and it belongs somewhere, just not in a signature.
I already know that the first few posts I read from "that guy with the really sweet coaches pic in the signature" will cause me to smile. The 75th post with that same signature will make me want to burn the pixels in my computer screen.
We're lucky that no female posters have avatars or sigs with men wearing only an "M" g-string. Boutros (name?) picture is bad enough.
Seriously, it is important to remember that some of us bring up mgoblog with others around who can get offended at pics, so I guess the question (for most) is: would your mom approve of a pic? Remember the "NSFW" designation. If a pic is nsfw, don't use as an avatar or signature.
In general, I don't want things cluttered with ridiculous amounts of pics in avatars and signatures. But I guess what I (or other readers) want doesn't matter . . . do your own thing.
Well, it seems to me that for the most part people are not in favor of an image in the signature. I was on the fence and have now been convinced to get rid of it.